







































 
 

 

51 
© 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 
 

Agriculture and Food Sciences Research 
Vol. 7, No. 1, 51-57, 2020 

ISSN(E) 2411-6653/ ISSN(P) 2518-0193 
DOI: 10.20448/journal.512.2020.71.51.57 

© 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

    
 

 
 
Evaluate Technical Standards of Implemented Soil Bund in Central Rift Valley of 
Ethiopia: The Case of Adama, Lume and Dodota Districts 

 
Kalkidan Fikirie1 
Abebe Bezu2 
Melat Eshetu3 
Daniel Bekele4 
Mohamed Rabo5 

 
 

( Corresponding Author) 
1Holeta Agricultural Research Center, Holeta, Ethiopia. 

 
2,3,4,5Melkassa Agricultural Research Center, Melkassa, Ethiopia. 

 

 
Abstract 

Land degradation in the form of soil erosion is a serious problem in Ethiopia. To combat this, the 
government undertaken SWC measures across the country since 1970’s. This study therefore, 
investigated technical standard of implemented soil bund practice in CRV of Ethiopia. A mixed 
methods approach was employed, combining qualitative and quantitative data collection tools; HH 
survey, KI interviews, FGD, observation and desk literature review. HHs were randomly chosen 
from the sampling frame exist at PA level and a total of 150HHs were selected for this study. 
Further, soil bund structures were measured and evaluated. The data analysis was carried out by 
using descriptive statistics, one way ANOVA and chi-square tests. Results of the study showed 
that soil bund parameters implemented under the standard are bund spacing, width and height of 
embankment. While bund top width, bottom width, berm width and top width of embankment 
were better. Soil and stone bunds are mostly preferred, whereas check dam is the least preferred 
technology to implement in the study area. Major challenges farmers faced during SWC practices 
implementation, shortage of labor, lack of technical skills, fear for animal trampling, lack of 
awareness and lack of sufficient farm tools. Hence, the study has concluded that every year SWC 
practices implemented by community mobilization are not standardized and consequently it is 
difficult to manage the watershed in different areas. Therefore, the study suggests that well 
organized training should be given for experts at different levels to fill the technical gap on their 
skills and extension services like demonstration should be held for all stakeholders before 
implementing the SWC structures. 

 
Keywords: Farmers’ perception, Land degradation, Soil erosion, Technical standard. 

 
Citation | Kalkidan Fikirie; Abebe Bezu; Melat Eshetu; Daniel 
Bekele; Mohamed Rabo (2020). Evaluate Technical Standards of 
Implemented Soil Bund in Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia: The Case 
of Adama, Lume and Dodota Districts. Agriculture and Food 
Sciences Research, 7(1): 51-57. 
History:  
Received: 17 January 2020 
Revised: 21 February 2020 
Accepted: 26 March 2020 
Published: 5 May 2020 
Licensed: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons 

Attribution 3.0 License  
Publisher:  Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 
 

Acknowledgement: All authors like to thank government officials of Adama, 
Lume and Dodota districts, development agents for their support during data 
collection phase of the study. Special thanks go to Adama, Lume and Dodota 
districts’ natural resource coordinators for their guidance and provision of 
detailed information about the soil and water conservation practices in the 
study area. 
Funding: Authors would like to thank Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural 
Research (EIAR)/ Melkassa Agricultural Research centre (MARC) for the 
financial support to us to pursue this research. 
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of 
interests. 
Transparency: The authors confirm that the manuscript is an honest, 
accurate, and transparent account of the study was reported; that no vital 
features of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the 
study as planned have been explained. 
Ethical: This study follows all ethical practices during writing.   

 

 

Contents 
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 52 
2. Methodology ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 52 
3. Results and Discussions .................................................................................................................................................................. 53 
4. Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................... 56 
References .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 57 
 

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.20448/journal.512.2020.71.51.57&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2017-01-14
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.20448/journal.512.2020.71.51.57&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2017-01-14
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
https://www.asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/AESR/article/view/1592


Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2020, 7(1): 51-57 

52 
© 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

 

Contribution of this paper to the literature 
This study contributes to existing literature by investigating technical standard of implemented 
soil bund practice in CRV of Ethiopia. 

 
1. Introduction 
1.1. Background and Justification  

Land degradation in the form of soil erosion is a serious problem in Ethiopia. Most productive land has been 
exposed to degradation and threat both economic and survival of the people [1]. Soil erosion is a cause of land 
degradation that affects the soil physical, chemical and biological properties, results in onsite soil nutrient loss, soil 
structure and texture damage and offsite water pollution, flooding and sedimentation of water resources in the 
country [2]. 

In Ethiopia, alarming rate population increment, continuous and steep slope farming, low vegetation cover, 
deforestation and insufficient soil and water conservation practices cause annual soil loss of about 1.5billion metric 
tons and resulted, 1.2 ton/ha/yr cereal yield reduction on average [3, 4]. In addition, the continually increasing 
land use change is exasperating the rates of soil erosion, soil fertility reduction, crop yield decline and food 
insecurity [5, 6].  

Continuous soil erosion threatens communities’ livelihoods especially in drought prone areas, where arable 
land is a scarce resource in the country. According to Belay, et al. [7] report, deforestation for the expansion of 
agricultural farms and rangelands has driven to increasing soil losses and the growth of rock outcrops, soil nutrient 
depletion, decreasing productivity and macro environmental degradation in Ethiopia. 

To combat these problem, Ethiopian government promotes soil and water conservation practices through 
community mobilization to increase production and productivity of the land, food security, improve livelihood of 
the community and mitigate environmental degradation [8, 9]. Hence, since, 2010 different physical and biological 
soil and water conservation practices implemented by community campaign on privately owned and communal 
lands [10, 11]. These physical and biological soil and water conservation practices implemented in a coordinated 
effort by the government with local community members [12]. Nevertheless, mass mobilization approaches lead to 
the implementation of soil and water conservation practices with inappropriate design and resulting the 
implemented practices had lesser impact on conserving soil and water than expected and consequently gully 
formation in many part of the country. These are due to technical gap and lack of skilled manpower in the 
community. Technical gap caused failure of implemented physical and biological soil and water conservation 
practices which in turn serious soil erosion and land degradation in the country and also in the study area, failure of 
implemented soil and water conservation practices was a serious problem like other part of the country due to 
improper design.  

Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the technical standard of implemented soil bund by community 
campaign in Adama, Lume and Dodota districts, CRV of Ethiopia. Subsequently, the result of the study could be 
helpful for soil and water conservation researchers and other academicians.  

The objectives of this study were:- 

• To evaluate the technical standard of implemented soil bund in the study area. 

• To assess farmers’ perception on soil erosion and conservation practices. 

• To assess and describe major challenges farmers faced during soil and water conservation practices 
implementation. 

 

2. Methodology  
2.1. Study Area Description  

The study was conducted in three selected districts of CRV of Ethiopia namely Lume, Adama and Dodota 
districts. 

Lume district is found in the East Shewa Zone of Oromia Region and its located 70Km to the East of Addis 
Ababa the capital city of Ethiopia. The district is geographically located between 8024’-8051’ N latitude and 3901’-
39017’E longitudes [13]. The total land area of the district is 75,220ha, which comprises a total of 35 Peasant 
associations. Lume is bordered in the South with Bora district, in the East Adama district, in the North Amhara 
region, in the West Ada’a Chukala district and in North-west with Gimbichu district. The administrative center of 
the district is Modjo town.  

Adama district is bordered on the south by the Arsi Zone, on the southwest by Koka Reservoir which separates 
it from Bora district, on the west by Lume, on the north by the Afar region and on the east by Boset district. The 
altitude of the district ranges from 1500-2300m.a.s.l.  The major soil type of the district is Andosol and about 
74.3% of the district coved by this soil type. The remaining 25.7% of the districts’ soil is Cambisols and Luvisols. 
Adama district has an estimated total population of 180,710 of which 91,859 are men and 88,851 are women [14]. 
The population density of the district is 207.4 people per square kilometer, which is greater than the zone average 
of 189.6 and the average farmland size per household was 2.5ha.  

Dodota district is a part of Arsi zone and bordered on the south by Tena, on the southwest by Hitosa, on the 
north by the east shewa zone, on the east by Jelu and on the south east by sude district. The administrative center 
of the district is Dera and other towns include Awash Melkassa. The altitude of Dodota ranges from 1400 to 
2500m.a.s.l. The total land of the district shows that 23.2% cultivable, 10.6% pasture, 4.3% forest and the remaining 
42% is considered swampy, mountainous or otherwise unusable.  



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2020, 7(1): 51-57 

53 
© 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

 

 
Figure-1. Map of  the study area. 

 
2.2. Sampling Procedure 

Multistage sampling technique was employed to select the population for the study which involved purposive 
and random sampling techniques. First, districts were purposively picked, and secondly, kebeles were selected 
using lottery method. Finally, households were randomly chosen from the sampling frame (list of farmers) exist at 
kebele level. A total of 150 households were selected for this study.  
 

2.3. Data collection and Analysis 
Data was collected through structured questionnaire administered to sampled farmers by trained enumerators. 

Before the actual survey, the questionnaire was pretested in non-sampled villages. The pretest was not only used to 
test the appropriateness of the tool in collecting the required data but also to evaluate the trained enumerators on 
the capability of administering the questionnaire. In addition to these, soil bund structure implemented in the study 
area were measured and evaluated. 

Information related to perception of farmers on soil and water conservation technologies, farmer’s preferences 
of SWC practices and major challenges farmers faced by before and during soil and water conservation 
implementation were gathered from the respondents. Households’ socio demographic, institution and economic 
features were also collected. Data were cleaned, organized and analyzed using SPSS software. Both descriptive and 
inferential statistics were used to analyze the gathered and cleaned data.  
 

3. Results and Discussions  
3.1. Respondents’ Socio Demographic Structures  

The study was conducted in three districts of CRV of Ethiopia. The total numbers of respondents interviewed 
were 150 and of which 84% respondents are male, the rest 16% were female respondents. The age of respondents 
showed that, 93% of respondents included the age of 18-64 and the remaining 7% are > 64 age Table 1. 

Out of the total respondents, education levels of 50.7% of the respondents were elementary school and 16.7% 
are uneducated. Concomitantly, 17.3% of respondents existed in high school education level. In this study, Adama 
(16%) and Dodota (12%) districts have the least illiterate respondents, and Lume have the highest uneducated 
(22%) respondents.  

The high number of family size was recorded under Dodota district than Adama and Lume which is smaller 
than the national average family size of 6.4 people per household. Hence, from this result and personal observation 
during field work it is possible to conclude and suggest that labor availability is key factor influencing households’ 
decision to participate in soil and water conservation practices.    
 

Table-1. Socio-demographic characteristics by districts. 

Variables  
 

Lume 
(N=50) 

Adama 
(N=50) 

Dodota  
(N=50) 

Pooled  
(N=150) 

Gender in % Male 84.0 90.0 78.0 84.0 
Female 16.0 10.0 22.0 16.0 

Household head age in % 18-64 92.0 96.0 92.0 93.0 
>64 8.0 4.0 8.0 7.0 

 
 
Household head education level in % 

Non educated 22.0 16.0 12.0 16.7 
Read and Write 14.0 18.0 8.0 13.3 

Elementary school 52.0 44.0 56.0 50.7 
High school 12.0 20.0 20.0 17.3 

Diploma 0.0 2.0 4.0 2.1 
Family size  

 
5.6 5.2 6.3 5.7 



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2020, 7(1): 51-57 

54 
© 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

 

3.2. Standard of Implemented Soil Bund in the Study Area  
To evaluate the quality of implemented soil bund in the study area, parallel transect walk method was used to 

measure the dimensions of the implemented soil bund structures. The major physical soil and water structures 
were found in the study area, soil bund, waterway, cutoff drain, check dams and others. These structures have 
mainly constructed by community mobilization. Bund spacing, bund gradient, field slopes, bund cross sectional 
areas like embankment height, top and bottom width and channel depth and width were measured and evaluated. 

Accordingly, the implemented soil bund structures were above and below the standards. Soil bund parameters 
implemented below the specified standards were bund spacing, bund depth, and height of embankment and bottom 
width of embankment. While, bund top width, bund bottom width, berm width and top width of embankment are 
better Table 2. During field observation, there was no any similarity between the existing soil bund structures in 
the area. The main reasons for soil bund implemented below the standards are knowledge and skill gap on soil and 
water conservation structures. This was not only farmers but also development agents have knowledge and skill 
gap on designing the structures.  In the study area, usually communities perceived that implementing soil bunds in 
narrow spacing may create difficulty in plowing activities and reduces farm size at the same time needs much labor 
forces to implement. Traditionally, farmers were using traditional drainage ditches on their farmlands to disposed 
excess runoff during high rainfall. Nonetheless, this type of conservation measure was out of the standard which 
had negative impact on soil erosion control since the drainage ditches have on average high slope gradient which 
leads to erosion along traditional drainage ditches and create excess siltation on the lower part. Similar finding by 
Gizaw [15] reported that, farmers construct drainage ditches every year and sediments eroded from the ditches 
and accumulated down slope were common indicators of erosion on farmer’s farmlands.   
 

Table-2. Comparison between standards and implemented soil bund structure. 

Parameters National standards Lume Adama Dodota 

Slope for the sites (%)  >3 4.3 4.3 4.3 
Slope of the level bund (%) 0 0.2 0.1 0.1 
Bund length (m) 30-80 55.8 57.4 60.2 
Bund spacing (m) 34.9 10.7 22.8 21.5 
Bund depth (cm) 50 30 40 37 
Bund top width (cm) 50 72.9 77.5 76.3 
Bund bottom width (cm) 50 70.3 60.2 72.6 
Berm width (cm) 5 20 12.5 11.1 
Height of embankment (cm) 60 28.3 44.2 45 
Top width of embankment (cm) 30 43.3 36.7 35.2 
Bottom width of embankment (m) 1.1 1 1 1 

 

3.3. Farmers’ Perception on Soil Erosion  
Finding of the survey revealed that, 82.8% of Lume districts’, 78.3% of Adama district and 77.6% of Dodota 

districts’ respondents were implemented soil and water conservation practices to reduce the risk of soil erosion. 
While 17.2% of Lume district, 21.7% of Adama district and 22.4% of Dodota district respondents were not 
implemented any of the soil and water conservation structures to control soil erosion in the study area Table 3. 
 

Table-3. Farmers SWC structures implementers and non-implementer. 

SWC implementers  Lume Adama Dodota 

SWC implementers in % 82.8 78.3 77.6 
SWC non implementer in % 17.2 21.7 22.4 

 
Farmers had different interest in soil and water conservation practices. Majority of farmers showed high 

interest to conserve their soil while limited number of farmers were reluctant. Most of the time farmers whose 
lands were seriously degraded by erosion were highly interested to conserve the soil. These farmers were those 
residing in the upper part of the watershed. In contrary, farmers those lands were less degraded by soil erosion 
showed less interest. In terms of soil and water conservation structures users, 77.4%, 69.5% and 68.9% of 
respondents perceived the degree of soil erosion as sever from Lume, Adama and Dodota districts, respectively. In 
case of non-user groups (non-conservation implementers), majority of the respondents perceived the degree of soil 
erosion was moderate to minor on their croplands Table 4. The result of chi-square test showed that, respondents’ 
perception on the degree of soil erosion on their farmlands were significantly different between conservation 
practices implementers and non- implementers.  The reason is that, due to different in respondents’ education level 
and the degree of soil erosion problem on their cultivated lands. FGD and key informant interviewer also 
responded that the main causes of soil erosion in the study area were easily erodible nature of soils, uncontrolled 
grazing, inappropriate farming system, deforestation and poor watershed management. This result is in line with 
the finding of Kibemo [16] who stated that, educated farmers have better understanding the existence of soil 
erosion than uneducated farmers.  

 
Table-4. Farmers’ perception on soil erosion in the study area.  

Districts 
 

 
Lume Adama Dodota 

 

Degree of erosion SWC 
user (%) 

Non-
user (%) 

SWC user 
(%) 

Non-user 
(%) 

SWC user (%) Non-user 
(%) 

χ2 

Sever 77.4 1.7 69.5 8.8 68.9 5.3 0.067NS 
Moderate 12.3 1.5 7.5 6.4 15 4.7 0.078NS 

Minor 6.4 0.7 3.5 4.3 3 3.1 0.032NS 
Total 96.1 3.9 80.5 19.5 86.9 13.1 

 



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2020, 7(1): 51-57 

55 
© 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

 

3.4. Farmers’ Preferences of Soil and Water Conservation Practices  
Preferences about soil and water conservation technologies strongly affects farmers’ adoption decision. In the 

study area, most of the time farmers prefer soil bund (95%) and stone bund (80%) to implement on their own lands 
Table 5. As indicated in the focus group discussion, check dam and gully rehabilitation technologies were less 
prefered by respondents’ since these conservation practices needs skilled manpower and intensive labor. Moreover, 
farmers  have limited information about the values of these physical and biological conservation practices and 
destruction of biological materials by free grazing in the area. During field observation, it was witnessed that the 
nature of livestock husbandary was open grazing style this created damaging of structures by animal trampling 
over the structures. This makes that the concentration of runoff forms more erosion han inconserved areas. The 
chi-square test revealed that, there is insignificant difference among respondents’ perception on the effectivness of 
physical soil and water conservation practices. Majority of respondents perceived soil and stone bund were effective 
to control soil erosion while some proportions perceived check dam maked them more effective to control erosion. 
This is may happned, due to the difference in degree of erosion among respondents’ land, severity and minor 
eroded soils, farmers implement different structures to control runoff and sediment movement. 
 

Table-5. Farmers’ preferences of  soil and water conservation practices. 

Types of structure Farmers' preference in % Rank 

Soil bund 95 1 
Stone bund 80 3 
Waterway 78 4 

Cut off drain 77 5 

Gully rehabilitation 63 6 
Check dam 58 7 

 
Regarding structure maintainance, only 23%, 12.5% and 9.8% respondents from Lume, Adama and Dodota 

districts, respectively have maintained the structures on their farmlands Table 6. The absence of structural 
maintainance are due to farmers perception on consquences of erosion education, land ownership and family size or 
labor availability were major determinant farctors listed by farmers to not maintain the implemented structures 
individually. In most cases, farmers were not voluntary to maintain the implemented structures since hetrogeneity 
of the problem over landscape, variability in the size of land holding per househld and difference in perception to 
soil erosion. 
 

Table-6. Structures maintained by districts in the study area. 

Districts Structures maintained 

Lume 23.1% 
Adama 12.5% 
Dodota 9.8% 

 

3.5. Farmers Provided Extension Services and Training on Soil and Water Conservation Practices  
3.5.1. Access to Extension Services  

According to the household survey, 69% of Lume, 72% of Adama and 66% of Dodota respondents got better 
extension service on soil and water conservation technologies in the study area Figure 2.The chi-square test 
confirmed that there is no significant difference between districts with regard to extension services (P>0.05). As 
indicated in the focus group discussion, frequent contact of extension worker is also related to the socio-economic 
status of the farmers. Frequently, extension workers might prefer to visit farmers with more farmland or those 
who have already adopted the soil and water conservation technologies in the area. 

The importance of extension service is to initiate change that bring about sound soil and water conservation 
especially on the part of smallholder farmers as it offers them technical advice on necessary services. Therefore, 
extension service is fundamental for the natural resource conservation, providing training, technical advice, 
accessing the supply of inputs timely and giving various information that ranges from production to marketing. 
Moreover, it represent local farmers’ frequency of contact with DAs and frequency of participation in extension 
planning, training, field day, on-farm trial and demonstration regarding land management, agriculture and 
livestock production. Thus, extension service has positive impact on enhancing soil and water conservation 
technologies.  
  

3.5.2. Access to Training 
Training on soil and water conservation technologies is one of the key factor than influence the participation of 

farmers in soil and water conservation practices. Accordingly, 37% of Lume, 39% of Adama and 29% of Dodota 
districts’ respondents have access to training on SWC technologies Figure 3. The statistical test result confirmed 
that there was a negative and significant relationship between districts with regard to participation in soil and 
water conservation training (P<0.05) with Dodota having low participation. This indicated that the number of 
farmers got training were better at Lume and Adama districts. Hence, during focus group discussants responded 
that most of the time training was given by different NGOs like MERET and SLM (sustainable land management) 
in Lume and Adama districts. On the other hand, in Dodota district, farmers got training access often from 
government bodies including political leaders. The more the local farmers get soil and water conservation training, 
the more likely that they acquire the relevant information along with the technical; known the importance of soil 
and water conservation technologies. Training creates awareness and helps the local farmers to perform bring 
innovation and invention in soil and water conservation technologies. Hence, training as the fundamental element 
to change the perception of local farmers in order to adopt and expand soil and water conservation technologies.   



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2020, 7(1): 51-57 

56 
© 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

 

 
Figure-2. Farmers got extension services. 

 

 
Figure-3. Farmers got training on SWC practices. 

 

3.6. Major Challenges Farmers’ Faced During Soil and Water Conservation Structures Implementation 
Main challenges such as lack of labor, lack of technical skills, lack of farm tools, fear of animal trampling and 

lack of awareness are the major challenges in the study area though farmers appear to face such problems Figure 4.  
In the study area, usually soil and water conservation practices carried out in the dry season when no or little labor 
is needed for agricultural activities. Because, labor for the establishment constitutes the largest part of the 
investments in soil and water conservation practices. The technological options are less available in the study area 
to relieve humans. Thus, farm execution of most farm related works require human labor, among other. Physical 
soil and water conservation structures implementation and maintenance require intensive labor for which 
machinery has not been introduced or developed in the country.  

The durability of SWC structures mainly based on the slope of the area, rainfall intensity, soil stability and 
land use type and management, but it needs frequent maintenance such as de-silting and repairing broken parts. A 
guideline by the Ethiopian ministry of agriculture estimates 150-250PD for the construction of the kilometer of 
commonly practices soil and water conservation structures, such as soil bunds, fanyajuu, stone bunds [17]. In this 
case, labor may remain a challenge for the undertaking human labor based soil and water conservation activities in 
the area.   

Regarding lack of farm tools, challenge raised by farmers was no provision of spades and dig to excavate the 
soil and fear of animal trampling in the area, since structures implemented less quality and ineffective in the area. 
That is also what is explained by Kebede [10] which indicated that labor demand appears much more than the 
requirement for most ordinary farming business.  
 

 
Figure-4. Major constraints farmers faced during soil and water conservation implementation. 

 

4. Conclusion and Recommendations  
The participation of women are better at Dodota district than Lume and Adama (mean=16%).  Regarding 

family size, the high number of family size recorded under Dodota district compared to Lume and Adama. Soil 
bund parameters implemented below the standard are bund spacing, bund depth and height of embankment. 
Whereas, bund top width, bund bottom width, berm width and top width of embankment are better. Due to this, 
runoff generated over tops causing rill and gully formation which is difficult to control.  

With regard to SWC technology preferences; soil and stone bund are mostly preferred while, check dam is the 
least preferred technology to implement in the study area. The study result shown that, SWC implementers 
challenged by constraints like shortage of labor, lack of technical skills, fear for animal trampling, lack of awareness 
and lack of sufficient farm tools. To sum up, every year SWC practices implemented by community mobilization 
are not standardized and thus it is difficult to manage the watershed in different areas. 

Therefore, based on the above findings the following recommendations can be drawn for further consideration 
and improvement of soil and water conservation practices in the study area in particular and in the country in 
general.  

• Well organized training should be given for experts at different levels to fill the technical gap on their 
skills. 

• Extension services like demonstration should be held for all stakeholders before implementing the soil and 
water conservation structures. 

• Soil and water conservation structures should be planned by experts at Kebeles and district levels rather 
than planning at zonal or regional levels for its quality and effectiveness.  



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2020, 7(1): 51-57 

57 
© 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

 

References  
[1] T. Genene and G. Abby, "Review on overall status of soil and water conservation system and its constraints in different agro 

ecology of southern Ethiopia," Journal of Natural Sciences Research, vol. 4, pp. 59-69, 2014. 
[2] H. Hurni, "Land degradation, famine, and land resource scenarios in Ethiopia. In: Pimentel D, editor. World Soil Erosion and 

Conservation," ed Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp. 27–61. 
[3] T. Girma, "Land degradation: A challenge to Ethiopia," Environmental Management, vol. 27, pp. 815-824, 2001. Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s002670010190. 
[4] D. Nigatu, F. Kalkidan, and M. Tewodros, "Soil and water conservation practices on crop productivity and its economic 

implications in Ethiopia: A review," Asian Journal of Agricultural Resource, vol. 11, pp. 128-136, 2017. Available at: 
https://doi.org/10.3923/ajar.2017.128.136. 

[5] N. Haregeweyn, J. Poesen, J. Nyssen, G. Verstraeten, J. De Vente, G. Govers, S. Deckers, and J. Moeyersons, "Specific sediment 
yield in Tigray-Northern Ethiopia: Assessment and semi-quantitative modelling," Geomorphology, vol. 69, pp. 315-331, 2005. 
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2005.02.001. 

[6] M. D. Tsegaye, A. Tsunekawa, M. Tsubo, and N. Haregeweyn, "Dynamics and hotspots of soil erosion and management scenarios 
of the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia," International Journal of Sediment Research, vol. 27, pp. 84-99, 2012. Available at: 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2005.02.001. 

[7] K. T. Belay, A. Van Rompaey, J. Poesen, B. S. Van, J. Deckers, and K. Amare, "Spatial analysis of land cover changes in eastern 
Tigray (Ethiopia) from 1965 to 2007: Are there signs of a forest transition?," Journal of Land Degradation Development, vol. 26, pp. 
680-689, 2015. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2275. 

[8] N. Haregeweyn, A. Tsunekawa, J. Nyssen, J. Poesen, M. Tsubo, D. T. Meshesha, B. Schütt, E. Adgo, and F. Tegegne, "Soil erosion 
and conservation in Ethiopia: A review," Journal of physical geography, vol. 39, pp. 750-774, 2015. 

[9] B. Gessesse, W. Bewket, and A. Bräuning, "Determinants of farmers' tree-planting investment decisions as a degraded landscape 
management strategy in the central highlands of Ethiopia," Solid Earth, vol. 7, pp. 639-650, 2016. Available at: 
https://doi.org/10.5194/se-7-639-2016. 

[10] W. Kebede, "Effect of soil and water conservation measures and challenges for its adoption: Ethiopia in focus," Journal of 
Environmental science and Technology, vol. 7, pp. 185-199, 2014. 

[11] A. Teshome, J. de Graaff, C. Ritsema, and M. Kassie, "Farmers' perceptions about the influence of land quality, land fragmentation 
and tenure systems on sustainable land management in the north western Ethiopian highlands," Land Degradation & Development, 
vol. 27, pp. 884-898, 2016. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2298. 

[12] T. Amare, A. D. Zegeye, B. Yitaferu, T. S. Steenhuis, H. Hurni, and G. Zeleke, "Combined effect of soil bund with biological soil 
and water conservation measures in the northwestern Ethiopian highlands," Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology, vol. 14, pp. 192-199, 
2014. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecohyd.2014.07.002. 

[13] A. Kebede and J. Kideghesho, "Community-based land use Planning for conservation and development," InWEnt-GTZ Training 
Course. Ethiopia, 2004. 

[14] CSA, Population and housing census report. Administrative report, Addis Ababa, 2007. 
[15] D. Gizaw, "Conceptualizing rill erosion as a tool for planning and evaluating soil conservation in Angereb watershed," Ethiopia: 

Methodological Development Research Report for Q505 Project Supported by Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership Program 
(ESAPP). Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.7892/boris.692862010. 

[16] D. Kibemo, "Farmers' perception on soil erosion and their use of structural soil conservation measures in Soro District, Southern 
Ethiopia," MSc Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia, 2011. 

[17] D. Lakew, V. Carucci, W. Asrat, and A. Yitayew, "Community based participatory watershed development: A guideline, part 1, 
ministry of agriculture and rural development, federal democratic republic of ethiopia ministry of agriculture and rural 
development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, January 2005," 2005. 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Asian Online Journal Publishing Group is not responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability, etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. 
Any queries should be directed to the corresponding author of the article. 

 


